interests of those Indians at heart. I have had enough experience with Mr. Willis, I believe, to know that he has been honest and true clear through from the beginning up to now.

Now, the reason why I am not interested in allotments any more is because I have been convinced there is really no vested property rights in those lands on the part of the supposed allottees. At one time I thought they did have a vested property right in these lands, but I do not think so now. I cannot tell it very well, and I am not a lawyer, so I ask permission, Mr. Chairman, to read an opinion on that point which expresses it very well [reading]:

CLAIMS ARE MADE THAT CERTAIN INDIANS HAVE "VESTED RIGHTS"

One of the "claims" made by Mr. Sloan in addition to the assertion that the lands were "allotted" is that his clients have a vested right in the lands they are claiming.

This claim is obviously made to further confuse and defeat by delay the bill now before you for consideration. The reservation lands at Palm Springs belongs to all the enrolled members of the tribe. The title is held by the Government as trustee for the Indians. Each Indian owns an equal share in the whole reservation. A person acquires "a vested right" in lands or property where formerly the title was in dispute; it obviously is not sound logic to assume that one of the actual owners of property where the title is not in dispute could legally acquire a vested right in his own property. And, further, the tracts or areas now claimed by Sloan for his "clients" has not, except in a few rare cases, been occupied by the Indians he now claims as having vested rights in the tracts. In most cases these tracts have never been occupied by anyonethey are vacant. He has now attempted to have new areas substituted for those originally selected.

Mr. CASE. Mr, Chairman, I would like to ask the witness her opinion as to whether or not there is a definite right or whether or not the allotments were ever actually made. In that connection, is it not a question of fact for the court to determine rather than for Congress to report on?

Mrs. SMART. I would like to see them have a chance to prove it, but for 2 years the case has been so incompetently handled that it has been thrown out twice on the same grounds.

Mr. CASE. The point at issue in this whole question, it seems to me, is just this: That if the allotments have been made, if the acts of selection have been made and that constitutes allotments that that is a question of fact, and only the courts could determine it. I have not been able to see how the passage of the Palm Springs bill affects that in the least. If the proposal to sell lands should be passed, it would only be conferring authority to sell the lands which have not been allotted and there would still remain a question for the court to decide as to whether the selections that were made in the past were allotments. That is the way it appeals to me.

Mrs. SMART. On the other hand, until that case is decided by the court it is the opinion of the Government, I believe, that all the land on the Palm Springs Reservation is tribal land.

Mr. CASE. Probably so, but the Government cannot sell the land that has been allotted.

Mrs. SMART. That is my understanding, too, if it has really been allotted.

Mr. CASE. Now, the question is in regard to these particular allotments as to whether or not they were allotments. That I think is particularly a question for the court to decide and not for Congress to legislate upon.

Mrs. SMART. I do not think that has been brought up in this bill. The bill before you has to do with the tribal lands, that is, the unallotted lands, or the lands not claimed as allotments.

Mr. CASE. Those are the lands which Mr. Sloan thinks have been allotted?

Mrs. SMART. I think the Commissioner made claim before this committee that this bill did not affect those lands that are in controversy in court.

Mr. CASE. That is my point exactly, so that a great deal of the testimony brought in here has no real merit to determine whether or not it would affect this legislation.

Mrs. SMART. You asked if this legislation would interfere with the disposal of the allotted lands, didn't you, or did I follow you?

Mr. CASE. I do not quite understand if I got your question. Now, I am wondering whether or not in your opinion this legişlation would interfere at all with rights of Indians to lands which they claim they have vested rights in?

Mrs. SMART. If they have that right, I don't think it would. Probably I have not answered your question.

Mr. CASE. Yes; that is exactly my point.

Mr. CRAWFORD. Will Mrs. Smart yield for a question on that? Mrs. SMART. Yes.

Mr. CRAWFORD. Do I understand now, that it is your opinion that the contents of this bill does not cover in any way whatsoever the lands which certain Indians claim have been allotted to them, although not yet patented?

Mrs. SMART. It is my understanding that it does not include those lands.

Mr. CRAWFORD. What is that understanding based on?

Mrs. SMART. Well, nothing more than the fact that the case is pending in court. I am not arguing the merits of the allotment case, however. I, in my own mind, have been convinced that there are no vested property rights in the lands in question. Of course, I cannot argue it as convincingly as a lawyer would. There is a very fine point involved.

Mr. CRAWFORD. That is not my question. You say this bill does not cover those particular lands?

Mrs. SMART. Yes.

Mr. CRAWFORD. And I am asking you what is your basis for the understanding.

Mrs. SMART. The bill says, "tribal lands."

Mr. CRAWFORD. All right; it dovetails into the other question. I would like to have my question answered. In other words, this bill does not include those lands that come along on the other side of the moon, we will say, and claim that those certain Indians have no specific title to the lands, they claim because it is all tribal lands, therefore the bill does not cover their lands.

Mrs. SMART. I am not capable of arguing that point the way it should be with you people.

Mr. CASE. If the witness will yield.

Mr. CRAWFORD. We should not take her time to argue like this. I want to find out how she arrives at her understanding. That is what I am after. She says she understands something.

The CHAIRMAN. If you will yield, I think Mr. Crawford has confused the witness.

Mrs. SMART. I am confused. I do not know whether I am going or coming, whether I should say "yes" or "no," now. I'll be frank

about it.

The CHAIRMAN. This bill will affect all the tribal lands; these lands that are in question will be affected by this bill if they have not been allotted. Isn't that right?

Mrs. SMART. Yes.

Mr. CRAWFORD. I see.

The CHAIRMAN. If they have been allotted, the bill will not affect them?

Mrs. SMART. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed.

Mrs. SMART. I would like to give a sort of roll call of the different so-called allottees who have this allotment case pending in the district court in Los Angeles; there were 11 claimants the last thing I knew about it; that is, 11 adult claimants, or so I understood Mrs. Alice Lee Jemison to say at the last meeting of the committee. Of course, I have not been working on the case, of helping with it for over 6 months. So, I do not know what changes have been made. or whether the names of any more claimants have been added to the list since then. But in the case of five of them-namely, Mrs. Juana Hatchitt, Genevieve P. St. Marie, Carrie P. Casero, Annie J. Pierce, and Rafina M. Bere-if what the older Indians at Palm Springs say is true, they really do not belong at Palm Springs, and are in fact members of another band of Mission Indians, called the Cabazon Band. Their mother was never adopted into the Palm Springs Band. If is true that their uncle, Miguel Saturnino, who recently died, was adopted into the Palm Springs Band, but this fact would not necessarily make his nieces members of the band.

Then, there is a group composed of three of the so-called allottees, whose names are: Mrs. Romaldo Lugo Taylor, Lena Lugo Welmas, and Roy Lugo. Those three wrote letters some time ago with the aid of Mr. Quackenbush, trying to get out of what they thought was an "irrevocable power of attorney" with Thomas L. Sloan, who was, and is, handling their case. Mr. Quackenbush did not explain to the Indians, or tell them that merely the writing of these letters, which were written in triplicate and sent to the Commissioner, the United States attorney in Los Angeles who had charge of this case for the Government, and one was sent to Mr. Sloan, in fact revoked the power of attorney, although I believe that was a fact. Or that these letters dismissed their cases in court, so of course their cases are still pending.

Then there is another allottee, Joseph Quati. He is a half brother of Willie Marcus, and as everyone knows, is most unfortunate and certainly should not have the control of an allotment because he would not be able to protect himself.

Then the last two allottees on this roll call of mine are Ramon Manuel and Marcus Pete. Ramon Manuel is an uncle of Marcus Pete.

You remember Marcus because he was here last year. He made a very good showing, but if you saw him today you would not know he was the same individual. As I said to some friends of mine,

I think he is dying on his feet, he looks so bad. I could go into his case further at this time, but I have already taken it up with the Indian Office. On account of the way things are with him, I think that Marcus Pete's interests are such that he is not capaple of having an allotment because the people who have assumed control of his supposed allotment are even reaching over now and trying to grab up and control the uncle's supposed allotment which is on a very valuable corner in section 14, near the Indian store, to "manage" it for this uncle and capitalize on it for themselves, the same as they have with Marcus Pete's. Or so this uncle, Ramon Manuel, told me not long ago.

The next thing I see I have made note of here to speak on is the airport controversy at Palm Springs. I think that situation merits some comment from a disinterested person.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the witness has expired. If members of the committee care to question the witness the Chair will recognize

them.

Mr. BUCKLER. Mr. Chairman—

The CHAIRMAN. Do you wish to ask a question, Mr. Buckler?

Mr. BUCKLER. The committee has taken up at least 5 minutes of the lady's time, and I ask unanimous consent that she be given 5 more minutes within which to complete her statement.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Buckler asks unanimous consent that Mrs. Smart be given 5 more minutes. Are there any objections?

Mr. CRAWFORD. Reserving the right to object, I understand that there will be no questions asked in the next 5 minutes; is that correct? Mr. BUCKLER. Yes.

Mr. CASE. Will the witness yield to permit me to ask a very brief question?

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any objection to recognizing Mr. Case for a question and then recognizing the witness for 5 minutes? The Chair hears none. Mr. Case.

Mr. CASE. The question I want to ask is this: Does Marcus Pete handle his own affairs now?

Mrs. SMART. No.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Buckler asks unanimous consent that the witness be given 5 minutes to complete her statement and that the members of the committee refrain from interruption. Is that right? Mr. BUCKLER. Yes; that is my request.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the witness will be permitted to proceed without interruption for 5 more minutes.

Mrs. SMART. In regard to the airport controversy, when I was at Congressman Sheppard's office the other day he said he thought it was the duty of the Indians to name a price for a lease on the land desired for an airport and let it remain at that and let the chamber of commerce of Palm Springs take it or leave it.

I believe it looks as though the Palm Springs people will have to take it. The sum fixed by the Indians for a lease on section 18 is $1,200 a year for that section, which is very, very low, it seems to me, and inasmuch as the chamber of commerce of Palm Springs have wanted the Indians to come over to their side on so many, many things, I do not think it is any more than fair that the chamber of commerce accedes to some of the things the Indians want, particularly in the case of the land desired for an airport. I understand that there is no

other land there as suitable for this purpose as section 18; and as the price is fair, I think it should stand and that there should not be any compromise.

Now, I hate to go into the last thing I have on my list here, be cause I do not like to mention names or talk mean about people. However, there comes a time, and I feel this is the proper time, to say something about the activities of a certain individual who has been before this committee many times. Over a long period of time there has been a stringent effort on the part of this person to spread himself before this committee and in his ecclesiastical and precise manner run down the Indian Office and try to put himself in the position of doing, or going to do, wonderful things for the Indians and he has gotten away with it more or less for over 20 years and there has been thousands of dollars collected from poor California Indians who couldn't afford to pay it under the misrepresentation that he is going to get a vast sum of money for them. Some of them have even mortgaged and lost their homes just to get money for this person. And for what? I think for nothing more than to enable him to come to Washington and lead a double life. bad enough to have the affairs of the Indians of the whole State of California interferred with and that the progress of their case in the court of claims impeded, as it is, by this certain individual, and I think you know who I mean, without my mentioning his name. Now, when these Palm Springs Indians have a chance to get out of the awful condition in which they are living by converting some of their property into cash for themselves this same person comes here and tries to make you believe that this bill would be injurious to the Indians. He probably sees more in it for himself were the affairs of the Palm Springs Indians conducted in a different way. That is all I need to say. I feel that way about it and I have no hesitancy in saying so.

The CHAIRMAN. Has the witness finished?

Mrs. SMART. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. If any members wish to ask the witness any questions the Chair will recognize them at this time.

Mr. CRAWFORD. In regard to the statement that you made in regard to Mr. Sloan and Mr. Willis you referred to a moment ago

Mrs. SMART (interposing). They seem to be pretty peaceful now, sitting over there side by side.

Mr. CRAWFORD (continuing). Will you clear me up on this point: I understood from your remarks that Mr. Sloan represented certain Indians?

Mrs. SMART. He is referred to as representing the minority.

Mr. CRAWFORD. That is, the Indians who claim title to the property, patent for which has not been as yet granted, is that it? Mrs. SMART. Yes.

Mr. CRAWFORD. Is that his participation in these affairs?

Mrs. SMART. It goes farther than that, I think. It goes beyond that, to the point that it interferes with the wishes of the majority of the Indians there.

Mr. CRAWFORD. I want to be cleared up on this point if you please: I want to find out if you are objecting to his professional representation of certain Indians who feel that they have rights that are not being respected. Is that what you are objecting to?